Perm residents were surprised by a curious and distinctly unpleasant turn in an online shopping case that ended up in the regional court. A man from Perm ordered the iPhone 16 through an internet seller, hoping for a fast delivery and a genuine device. Instead of a sleek gadget, the package contained canned sprat labeled with a patriotic tag for the homeland. The incident was disclosed by the press service of the Perm Regional Court, which noted that the buyer sought about 215,000 rubles in compensation from the seller, arguing that the misleading shipment had caused financial harm and disruption. The episode underlines the risk some online purchases carry when product representations do not match what arrives, and it showcases how courts step in to defend consumer rights when such deals go wrong. The official statement from the court emphasized the claimant’s aim to obtain full reimbursement and additional compensation for the trouble caused by the misdelivery and the apparent deception.
According to the case file, the events unfolded in November of the previous year when the Perm resident placed the order with Marketplais. The chosen item was the iPhone 16 Pro Max with 1 terabyte of memory and support for both physical SIM and eSIM, all encased in a black titanium finish. The total upfront payment for the goods and delivery was 190,000 rubles. As is common in courier arrangements, the contents could not be inspected before payment. When the recipient opened the box at home, he found canned sprat instead of the phone, a substitution that left him unable to use the device and raised questions about the seller’s reliability. The incident illustrates how verification steps at delivery and proper packaging are essential in high-value electronics purchases and how misdelivery creates both financial losses and consumer distrust.
Efforts to recover the money through the online store did not succeed. Marketplais attributed responsibility to the individual entrepreneur Cherkassky Da, who had promised to refund the money in line with a court decision but failed to fulfill that commitment. With promises unkept and funds unrecovered, the buyer proceeded to seek judicial resolution. The case thus moved from a private dispute to a formal court proceeding where documentation and evidence could be examined, and where consumer protection rules would determine accountability and compensation.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Perm resident. It ordered Marketplais to reimburse the full cost of the smartphone, 189,990 rubles, to the claimant. In addition, the court awarded 25,000 rubles to cover damages associated with the misdelivery and the inconvenience caused. The defendant was also required to pay 107,500 rubles as a fine for violations of consumer rights. The judgment reflects the court’s expectation that sellers act in good faith and that misrepresentations or substitutions of goods will be penalized to deter similar behavior in future transactions. The decision stands as a clear reminder that consumer protection laws are enforceable in online commerce and that timely compensation is available when expectations are betrayed.
At present, the court decision has not yet entered into legal force and remains subject to appeal. The case illustrates the ongoing tension between consumer expectations in online commerce and the responsibilities of sellers and intermediaries to verify and fulfill orders accurately. It also underscores the importance of clear packaging and the right to inspect goods upon receipt, especially when large sums are involved and expensive electronics are at stake. In a related note from Moscow, reports described moves to shut down a market known for computer goods called Budenovsky, signaling broader efforts to address problematic practices in the tech retail landscape. The broader picture for shoppers is simple: document every step of a purchase, preserve receipts, and be prepared to pursue formal remedies when expectations are betrayed.